Although the WTFPL website (http://www.wtfpl.net/faq/) does note somewhat ominously that it hasn't been tested in courts, it seems legitimate enough to me. Is there any evidence outside of its lack of history in court that would indicate it isn't suitable for production use?
EDIT: gnu.org also says "We do not recommend this license" ,pointing to the Apache license as providing better protection against 'patent treachery'. (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html)
The problem with WTFPL is that it's not clear that it lets you do the things that copyright usually prevents you from doing. In particular:
* It's not explicit that the user can redistribute the software freely.
* It's not explicit that you're free from warranty, meaning that, unlike basically all code ever written, you're on the hook for bugs and defects, just like a physical product.
Yes, it does say "do what you want," but that's not necessarily good enough for lawyers.
Track down what 'DannyBee has to say about WTFPL and licenses like it. There are good reasons not to use it even if you don't care what happens with your code.
I think the main thing is that even if you literally don't care what the fuck happens with your code you should at least make a statement that absolves you of responsibility, such as "THIS SOFTWARE COMES WITH NO WARRANTY" etc.
The capitals are generally a response to the "conspicuous" requirement of the UCC:
(2)Subject to subsection (3), to exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any part of it the language must mention merchantability and in case of a writing must be conspicuous, and to exclude or modify any implied warranty of fitness the exclusion must be by a writing and conspicuous. Language to exclude all implied warranties of fitness is sufficient if it states, for example, that "There are no warranties which extend beyond the description on the face hereof."
I don't know if the definition of "conspicuous" has ever been tested in court, but that's the idea. I'd be interested to see it used as ammunition against clickwrap EULAs, though.
EDIT: gnu.org also says "We do not recommend this license" ,pointing to the Apache license as providing better protection against 'patent treachery'. (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html)